Making sense of Canon's 4K cameras with EOSHD

The announcement of Canon's 4K EOS-1D C DSLR, have caused a lot of uncertainty about what the company is trying to achieve and who they're doing it for. Andrew Reid at EOSHD has taken a look at the camera's capabilities and omissions and what they mean for professional cinema production and how it sits alongside the EOS C500. We also spoke to Canon about how it sees the two models co-existing and who it sees at the audience for each camera.

'Thanks to its 4K RAW output, the EOS C500 will used as a main camera by cinematographers for high resolution broadcast TV and cinema production. However, the inclusion of all the same Full HD features as the EOS C300 provides the flexibility to suit many broadcast productions. The EOS-1D C will also be used by the film production industry professionals, possibly as a ‘B’ camera and particularly in situations where a conventional camera, even one as small as C300, won’t fit. We also believe it will be used by independent cinema productions as a standalone camera.

'Because of the EOS 1D C’s ability to act as a film and stills camera it also has an ideal application in journalism, allowing a single reporter could produce high quality video and capture stills for broadcast. Overall the unique feature set of the EOS 1D C means it will be suitable for diverse shooting scenarios.'

As just a joe blow. Average shooter. I could care less. Have no idea what this is about and don't care. I agree with others that Canon is pushing for everyone to buy into the full frame cameras and lenses. Very arrogant in my opinion.

Those "others" apparently are not Canon's potential customers and definitely has no effect on the new prospects that Canon can get from this new market segment.From the investor's point of view, I would like Canon to explore more advanced products to enter different potential markets. This not only strengthen the competition power of Canon but also benefits the stockholders. In the long run, I trust this approach will rise their stock price. A good time to invest in Canon's stock.

Last closing at $46.45. A good price to take.If Canon continue to do more such innovations, $50 is coming soon.Canon's products, I don't hate it and we will continue to buy it. Their sales representatives are comparatively knowledgeable, not bad.For sure, top quality printers, we prefer Xerox and Oce but not Canon.

Few questions to Canon, does de EOS-C500/ EOS-1Dc has internal ND filters (with one or two modes , for example ND4-ND8). Do the Cinema lenses have drop-in filters and can I mount a filter on the front of the lens (77mm/82mm). I love to work with an external variable ND filter on my Panasonic DMC-FZ100/150 but soon I test it on my EOS-7D and 5D Mk II with L lenses.

I like clever and affordable cameras. Maximum quality for lowest possible price. GH2 or E-M5 represents clever David and Canon wants to be the big expensive Goliath... I believe in David...$700 GH2 vs $3,500 5D Mlllhttp://www.eoshd.com/content/7722/5d-mark-iii-vs-gh2-vs-nex-7

As usual the dinosaurs are complaining about innovation and the development of new equipment which Canon, Nikon and other brands are bringing to the market. The technology and features that the new products have will be available widely in the near future at lower prices. They will be used and tested by Hollywood and others. But of course their are the few who have no idea how to develop new technology but will be 1st in line to moan, knock and slag off the technology that they will be using at different levels, Pro, semi pro or just someone who loves taken photo's and video. For all the complainers out their who would not have the 1st clue how to design and build new imaging and video technology just enjoy what these brands spend millions on developing for us to use and enjoy. Talk about what you want to see or go spend millions trying to design and build your own. Nuf said...

Canon has been ignoring the EVIL-type elephant in the room for some time now. This is the underlying problem. They carefully locked in many users with their quite capable EOS EF lenses. Now they have a great new direction for us. Hey guys! we have decided that you all wanna-be videographers, and guess what we decided that you didn't want that li'l ol' namby pamby evf fitted, real men love a great big hunk of camera between their fingers (chorus: clackitty clack, we are all dslr men .... refrain). So we kept it big, we kept it expensive (more expensive, y'all never complain ...) And guess what! Once you mortgage the house (again) and get the wife to take in laundry for a while the video images you stick on your new terrabyte drive will make it all worth while, that is if you can get the in-laws around again to look at them.

I guess that Leica wasn't going to change anything either - but they still sell small quantities of great cameras. Kodak could not adapt to change either.

2rttew Your posts are rather funny, especially many "????" Feels like you're screaming out all the time at home and hitting table with your fist. If you have to prove your worth by "professional looking camera" then it's kind of sad. Calling EVIL cameras junk is really immature too.

I love it when they come out with great new gear, even if its big and expensive at the start...

Unlike the money our sorry governments stuff down the throats of international Banking cartels, these new features will actually trickle down to regular folks in the shape of smaller, more affordable gear soon enough. :D

It's about time to drop the DSLR sticker. Everything has been Digital for ages, we're used to it.Cameras ceased to be other than Single Lens for some good long time too.Reflex? Internal monitors do better job at WYSIWYG, are simpler to construct and install than mirrors, do not cause delays, and both are used just for framing purposes anyway. And there is nothing "reflex" in video or movie...

OK, I'm not disparaging anything. My point is, electronics nowadays proves to be cheaper to produce, and simpler to mantain than mechanical devices. As to flagships, it was always the same: well made devices (thus: reliable), remained popular while others sought new ways. Once these new approaches were tested and proven, they were accepted also by the "good ole reliables". Flagships change. Remember IBM? ;)

I agree if it is an improvement of the same substance (e.g. different dynamic range of the CMOS sensors).However, when the substance is different, and there is a fundamental physics difference (in this case protons vs. electrons), then I think they cannot be compared with each other, and there is no real substitution at all.OVF has its specific applications; while EVF also has its specific applications.Regarding IBM, the mainstream products of IBM from its early history to now are computing machines. Although it goes through a number of different eras, from vacuum tubes to transistors to IC and CMOS, they are all the same substance.

IBM... I was hinting at their reluctance to implement some new approach, keeping safely traditional until others tested it thoroughly. Same MO can be observed by, say, Nikon through the decades. Or Kodak. Or Volkswagen.In the meantime, both companies sold less products than ther competition, relying on their pioneering name to keep their prices high. What the public could not know (and if you were in the business, you couldn't miss noticing), all manufacturers had about the same percentage of their products clogging their services...

Henry Ford is dead and so is the Model T., and it would be the same for Canon cameras had they stuck by the FD lens mount. Back when we lived in a world where cameras and their lenses were all mechanically operated, the FD mount was one of the finest examples of its kind. But times change, and new tech helps to drive that change. The new cinema cameras from Canon and others will eventually put new tools and toys in the hands of us mere mortals with shallow pockets as soon as the new tech becomes more widely accepted. But you have to start somewhere, and Canon has picked their starting point very carefully. And the all electronic EOS EF lens mount will likely be the lens mount of choice for the overwhelming majority of photographers and videographers alike. Bet on it.

Now it's called a Corolla. Or maybe a Prius? I'm torn between the Volt, Leaf, and Fusion. But, heck, folks who can afford a 1D C should not be phased (or fazed?) by $4/galllon gasoline. Of course, in Europe that's cheap!

The "majority of photographers and videographers" may now consist of iPhone users. A Henry Ford (or Jobs) would have appreciated that instantly. Others (alas) do not.

What, it doesn't have Live View? It doesn't have HDMI to plugin a field monitor? Zacuto and dozens of others don't make focussing loupes to fit the display? Are people laughing at the 5D Mk II, when countless professionals are using it on countless projects?

If you mean the bridge is for still photographers transitioning to cinema-quality video? Yeah, I can accept that.

A bridge for any other purpose? There's still little evidence that either Canon or Nikon are building bridges - it's more like they're extending a pier farther and farther out to sea.

The DSLR was supposed to be a bridge between film and digital. That bridge was crossed a long time ago. Since then, we've been "bridged" to a new generation of lens mounts that would be just as functional on full-frame mirrorless cameras.

The only gap remaining is OVF vs. EVF - and even OVF die-hards are happy to have Live View available. Only, a still photographer "bridging" to video with a DSLR gives up the eye-level viewfinder. Maybe a variation on Fuji's OVF/EVF hybrid is the right bridge for now.

Meantime, a lot of us would be happy to cross the full-frame mirrorless bridge - we're waiting for someone to build a road on the other side.

Just think of it as an expensive new body to match the expensive old lenses that you can't do much more with except keep on buying huge dslr bodies which are morphing into videocams. Of course you can buy even more expensive lenses to go with your expensive videocam.But this is not about price - it is about making locked in users stay wedded to hefty dlsr gear of various persuasions when some (quite a few) do not care Shakespeare's fig about video and just want a high-quality compact stills camera preferrably with an evf. The best they can seem to do is a 5DIII which is a quite passable stills camera but isn't its video capability right at the top of its song sheet?I guess if Canon are reluctant to make these monsters smaller then you really must take video as compensation.

They can't make a camera mirrorless camera with EVF work with EF lenses so that autofocus works well. No one can (ok, Nikon can, but only in bright light with the V1/J1; probably the tiny phase-detect sensor elements between pixels are too small and insensitive to work in low light). If you want to get rid of the mirrors you probably have to start with all new lenses that are designed for contrast detect AF (for AF to work properly). So buy a system which is like you want from the get go, i.e. MFT or NEX or Fuji instead of requiring Canon to try to do something that would not work well (without licensing Nikon 1 series autofocus which they'd probably never do out of pride). Canon and Nikon primarily make DSLRs, for people who want optical viewfinders.

Hate to be a Luddite, but the FD was a great lens even if an odd type of mounting mechanism. At least a collection of FD lenses can be used and is used by owners of quite a number of camera bodies that are not made by Canon these days. Canon were not going to make that mistake twice.

Call this a plus or a minus as you might like but the EOS EF lens, great as it might be, is only useful on a Canon EOS body. Canon sewed that one up nicely.

So perhaps some of the frustration is not would be videographers raging at the cost but more honest to goodness Joe with still cameras in mind.

Seems that like Henry Ford said "you can have any camera you like from Canon as long as it does great video" that it costs like you need a professional studio to go with it is neither here nor there.

So if you sew up the market for your lenses then this is fine as long as you meet the whole market expectations or something to hang them on.

True: RAW video = Studio + $Equip + Commercial Objectives. However, Canon (like Ford) has a Model T (T3i etc) for the masses, and it also makes good dedicted videocams. The HF G10 is pretty good. The question is how much Canon can or should raise the video features of a T4i. The 5D Miii is a modest evolution of the Mii. Neither consumers nor prosumers are quite ready for 4k video, although the $5k JVC GY-HMQ10 4K is an intrepid opening gambit. What buyers can actually do with such devices is another matter. How about a B-24 to join the Model T?

Canon and Sony have different approaches but I think they will meet sometime later. both of them are very experienced in video (Sony should have experience more than Canon, and Panasonic).

but Canon have the largest user base of pro DSLRs. I think that's why 1DC. you can use it just like 1DX (except the flash sync) and you can use it as a 4K video camera. this paves the way for a smooth transition, at least what Canon should have designed it for.

the problem with Sony is that there are not many good lenses (that's why they need the Zeiss brand, a brand for those who can't compete). effectively they have only one lens at the moment, the NEX 18-200 zoom.

I think the 240 fps burst will look better on 1DC. it looks that Canon don't have the technolgy for that yet, but they should have been working on it hard, for years.

Hi, I,m new to this blog, but its been a real hoot and chuckle to read so far. I don't make any claim of being the most knowledgeable photographer or videographer out there, but I gotta ask, are some of you the same folks who cursed Canon mightily for abandoning the mechanically based FD lens mount for their now famous all electronic EF mount? Or, perhaps you were among that very vocal group who swore that the engineers at Canon were out of their minds in putting all of that R&D effort into CMOS sensor tech. Heck, everybody knows that will never work. Yeah, right! With the exception of medium format, you can't find a quality camera that doesn't use CMOS tech in one form or another. So here we are today betting against Canon's scientists and marketing wizards again simply because we don't see an immediate benefit to our end of the market. There will be 1D C, C300 and C500 clones from the other guys probably before the year is out. Bet on it.

The real problem is, that the Canon has been already lagging with CMOS sensor performance for years since Nikon D3X came out. Their best still camera 5D mkIII is worse in both DR and resolution which is not good situation at all.

Canon is loosing more and more pro shooters if they can't bring serious update soon.

nonsense the mk 3 is a great camera that is a real challenge to nikon. and the d800 is the first nikon in a long time that looks as good as its canon counterpart. i dont know what world your living in. the mk 3 is gonna kick ass. And i have been a nikon shooter for years

As a Canon shooter I would have to say Canon's latest offerings are a catchup to where Nikon have been for some time.Canon have also based their newest still cameras around video as is plain to see with the new "C".Canon has made it very clear that video is the way to go for them and stills shooters get what little spinoff benefits from video added to their cameras.I will probably buy into the X as i think it is a good camera, even if it is just a cut down "C".

The D3X, D3s, D700, D7000 not only challenged the Canon equivalents, but were better cameras, with superior sensors. This is a fact. All you need to do is take a look at DxOMark to see that DarkShift point about sensor tech in true.

IMO This kind of product is at the fringe of what DPReview should be about. Interesting, but not really so relevant for us still photography people. Still inspiring to see what the motion picture industry is up to (and somewhat flattering to think we're somehow involved in their business). :P

To gape at any high-end equipment is a sort of day dream. To be a spectator of professional sports is no different, really. Ditto for celebrity gossip. On the other hand, every time one rides a commercial airliner or city bus, or buys food at a supermarket, we benefit from technical and industrial marvels, without giving it a thought.

Panavision, having learnt a lesson or two from Canon in transmarket fingerupnosery, has decided to add point and shoot capabilities to their Millennium line of film cameras. Apparently the move follows an overwhelming request by DPs around the world who appreciate the freedom to take their cameras home during the left over rental contracts to take some relaxing shots of their own toes and pussycats in their back gardens.

For what sort of video would this camera be suitable? Mainly for highly-controlled studio scenes. For outdoor and wildlife subjects, including sports, where moving subjects and panning are involved and a long DOF is needed, it would not be good. A full-frame CMOS sensor produces severe geometric warping at the margins with motion. This is why the largest sensors in dedicated video cameras are rarely larger than 2/3-inch. D-SLRs all have these limitations for video, but this reality seems to be overlooked by most people.

not sure why people are complaining about price, $15k might get you a top tier cine lens.. maybe a couple if you lower your standards. the camera body is typically the lowest cost in the whole production... in many cases, its simply rented.

I guess we just all crawl back into our caves and hibernate until Canon works out how to produce an EOS EF stills camera without a mirror box.

Meanwhile - great video cameras guys, and the 1Dx is probably the end of the massive-size dslr road, very nice as well. Should do well.

But meanwhile the angst is not that Canon cannot produce great gear but how it ignores the EVIL type elephant at the door as it quietly grows into a herd of capable beasts.

Do we run out of the back door and grab another brand in the process, or do we hang about wondering on whether we want more giant cameras or simply turn videographer? Or perhaps Canon really believe that elephants are a passing phase and will soon enough melt away.

I stopped buying new bodies a while back waiting for the EVIL-EOS body, pity that the lenses are only useful on a dslr body made by Canon.

Certainly the 1D X and 1D C are not going to be the last square bodies. The reason they make them is that they offer equal ergonomics for shooting verticals and horizontals. You know, people photography is a popular activity and shooting a vertical image with a gripless body requires twisting your hands in a most unnatural, and unergonomic position, not only that but it screams "photography happening here". The square bodies are large because most of the customers who these are intended for *want* them like that, with integral grips. When operating long lenses, the heavier body also provides better handling and balance than a small body without vertical grip. As a bonus are the higher speed and higher capacity batteries, plus better durability.

Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras are great for making small-sensor cameras that are compact and give good results in bright light, and offer some lens flexibility.

But if they put 24x36mm/FX sized sensors in interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras, the lenses would grow considerably, and with some f/2.8 they'd be just as big as the DSLRs we have today. The advantage of size is mostly for people who use short, compact lenses that have moderate apertures (zooms) or quite fast but compact pancake primes again of short focal length only. There is a specailized group of photographers and applications for these cameras but they are not as versatile as DSLRs. And only the Fuji X-Pro1 offers an optical viewfinder (along with electronic), with substantial limitations (cropping, not magnifying with the 60mm) and high cost. Until technology makes mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras to have as good autofocus for tracking movement, when the quality of the electronic viewfinder exceeds that of the optical, and when these cameras have substantial lens lineups including f/2.8 zooms, special purpose lenses etc. then Canon has to enter the market.

Finally, regarding your comment on using EF lenses on a compact mirrorless camera: this would require an adapter that makes the setup almost as big as a DSLR setup (but extremely poorly balanced in hand). Big lens+ adapter => requires big camera to handle well. Also, lenses designed for phase-detect AF cannot work well with cameras that only do contrast-detect AF such as all mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras except the Nikon V1 and J1. EF lenses are unsuitable for adaptation as autofocus lenses on mirrorless cameras relying on contrast detect AF. So you have to buy new lenses if you want mirrorless, either which way you go, today, or in the future. Only if you are fine with manual focus only, then an adapter can be used, but then the camera doesn't need to be made by Canon.

How odd that people who think 8 megapixels aren't enough for still photography get irked by video that barely approach that. If a 6 fps burst mode isn't fast enough for sports, shouldn't 60 fps be nice?

Yes, 4k displays are presently rare, except among some commercial theaters. But to be able to crop video as one can do all the time with still phtos would be offer great advantages when editing. Of course, this is not a consumer or prosumer possibility or need at present. However, don't be surprised if the time comes. Some sample clips shot with the JVC GY- HMQ10 have begun to appear. Will Canon or other brands eventually introduce 4k video devices for under $5k some day too?

Can you? If yes, then that's nice. Stuff like these are put up for the purpose of talking, with fan-boying and trolling a usual side-effect. If people don't talk about a product, what does that mean? Simple, "nobody cares", and that is probably one of the worst things a company can hear about their product.

I don't qualify to play NBA, Major League, or FIFA either. Does that make a guy deranged if the games interest him? Actually, I prefer amateur or scholastic sports, which makes me a bit out of sync with what draws most people's leisure attention.

@John Koch: No, you are not deranged if the games interest you. But something is very wrong if you start to attack players whom you don't know personally.@Alizarine: People don't really care about the product. They merely go after the brand name. In a sense, you are right, if no one cares about a brand name, it's not good either. :)

I am sure Cine and Videographer would be excited about the entry. No less the mainstream intro to 4K ( but still way too expensive for most ). But for real I am not seeing anything revolutionary to the photographic side, not even evolutionary in fact. The 1DX had in a fashion do it fine to integrate the 1D / 1Ds duo, and from what its like looks absolutely fine with most.

The real breakthrough in these years , as regard photography and stills is the new form factor of mirrorless and the new generation of sensors which canon seems both slow to react and innovate.

That much is the case with Canon right now. I do like the way they do the 1DX, but together with the 5D-III its not like competing with the other big gun, Nikon's D4 + D800 + D800E instead. And Sony is hot on the heal.

Even my Cine side of the hobby can't bring myself to like the 1D C, when I am seeing Sony's FS700 and the like of such from Panasonic coming.

Philip Boom's opinions are of not much value. He was given a Canon EOS C300 FOR FREE (!!!) to test it out and say wondrous things about it. If you pay for it, you can get some surprisingly good reviews on just about anything.

Is the C300 a "broadcast" camera? Than why can it only record at the low 50Mbit bitrate? It certainly is not a "Hollywood" camera -- for that to happen, your data rate has to be at the very least, 220Mb/sec. And 440Mb/sec (Sony SR) would be much more preferred, indeed.

Boom claims to own at least one copy of every single camera ever made. So, making intelligent decisions about which ones are good is not his forte.

Re. the $30,000 Canon "cinema" camera -- why get that from an upstart like Canon, when you can get a camera from Red for 1/3rd the price? A company with a decade long involvement in the 4K video field.

Canon is an upstart in this fieled, but is aking itself quickly irrelevant with their irrreverent boats and crazxy specs and insane prices.

Bloom is a serious professional--and a very brave one to offer a blog in a world of nasty, snarky, rude sociopaths. He does have his preferences, though. He did a very balanced report on the 5D MIII. Bloom does try to support his work with ads, and firms do loan him equipment, but I see no bias. A guy who can work with both Sony videocams and Canon DSLRs is pretty open minded.

Video quality should be judge, in the end, by what one sees, rather than whether the bitrate (which is codec dependent) is 50mbps or 200mbps. Cameras that shoot uncompressed, ultra high bitrate video are not machines most people, even ones in business, could ever afford or want to use.

The only people with any need to "complain" about the advent of simpler or cheaper 4k videocams are the ones who invested in RED and fear loss of the pricey and restricted niche.

I watched the sit-down spiel by Bloom that he did on the C300 last December in France at the chateau, he had pretty unpleasant comments on it ass well.

You don't need to have an engineering degree or ASC membership indeed to work with DLSR and also camcorders.

If 50Mbit codec is good enough for you, maybe you should just stick with a $125 P&S camera, that one will give you 17Mbit easy, maybe even 24. Pretty close. Canon, you see, is convinced that Hollywood digital prods at recorded at 50Mbit and M-JPEG, and that is where they are dead wrong.

How is Canon's vague plan for a "4K capable" videocam simpler and cheaper at $30,000, than the already existing Red Scarlet 4K-cam is at $10K? No matter which Canon camera one owns, there is no fear from Canon, that for sure.

Touché. There's no arguing with a crank who is always 100% right and who says that everyone else is 100% wrong.

The Scarlet is not a $10k camera, after you count the costs of all the stuff one must use with it. Bloom actually did work with RED and found the encumberances to outweigh the benefits.

At least ONE thing you say is HALF true. ASC credentials don't matter so much. Money is more critical. How some obtain it is one of life's marvels or mysteries. But one need not spend life envying those who've succeeded at what you or I have not.

I'd like to have a chateau and travel to pretty places all the time too. Camera tests confined to the same grungy slum or shanty town might be equally valid, or even equally cinematic, but folks in such circumstances usually need all their scratch for more basic essentials.

I'm not in the motion picture industry so I don't have much of an opinion about this other than the general hope and desire that Canon is not pulling resources away from the development of still imaging products to design video equipment with price tags to high that they are irrelevant to my existence.

Having said that, I wonder how many of the people complaining on this thread are part of Canon's target market, which is most definitely not the average 5DII or 7D "cinematographer". I would bet not many.

BTW.... good thing this Canon camera will OUTPUT 4K and 2K resolution video signals. Now, all you need to find is a good quality Canon 4K or 2K external video recorder to connect to your C500. Easy as peasy, hopefully.

Don't forget those nifty $45,000 Canon EF-mount "cinema" zooms for your C500, either. Basically, with the C500, the Canon cinema primes and zooms, and the connected recorder that does not yet exist, you are going to be ready to shoot video at the mid-$100,000s price point, if all goes well.

1. Canon had apparently done down the deep end. Remember, this month is the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.

2. Canon throws around words like "4K" and "2K" without seemingly fully understanding what these terms mean in professional circles.

3. Any camera that can do 4K recording only using an as of yet to be invented and matching external 4K video recorder is really not a 4K camera, is it now?

4. For some hitherto unknown reason, Canon desperately wants to be considered a "major player" in Hollywood with their newly announced "EOS Cinema" cameras. Unfortunately, achieving something like that takes decades of hard work and delivery of actually working products -- just ask Arri, Panavision, Sony, Vision Research, etc. about all that.

5. I am not quite sure what Canon is up to with their incessant announcements of late -- but I sort of doubt anyone at the company knows this for a fact, either.

All of you complaining about this camera probably complained about the 5Dii having video as well and we all know how that worked out, they created a market. I really am shocked at any of you who say 4k or 8k is not needed yet you probbaly think 24MP isn't enough. People seem to be luddites when it comes to next gen stuff but once the next gen is here, they wouldn't go back for anything.

if you think it opposite, this camera could be for still photographers who are shooting high frame rate JPEGs w/o flash -- the sports, performances, ... that 1DC might be a terrible tool to turn these people into single-crew low-budget video shooters and if the wireless bandwidth is enough, provided by mobile stations for events, they can compete in some degree with satellite relay trucks.

Canon's statement: "The EOS C500 will used as a main camera by cinematographers for high resolution broadcast TV and cinema production. However, the inclusion of all the same Full HD features as the EOS C300 provides the flexibility to suit many broadcast productions. The EOS-1D C will also be used by the film production industry professionals, possibly as a ‘B’ camera and particularly in situations where a conventional camera, even one as small as C300, won’t fit. We also believe it will be used by independent cinema productions as a standalone camera."

None of this wishful thinking will happen for real probably, just because Canon desperately wishes it so. Who is in charge of their asylum lately, I wonder? This much haphazard farrago within a few days -- totally unprecedented hitherto in the annals of reputable camera manufacturers.

People stop being so naive. Is it for Jounalists? Is it for Photographers? is it for Videographers? Or maybe Motion Picture production?

My guess is - even Canon don't know, nor care.

Canon is the biggest Marketing driven camera company today. Their numbers has shown that they had a tremendous demand in video segment, they sold tons of bodies there. And most importedly they sold tons of big margin lenses as well, because they did not have any, unlike existing Canon photogs. But the main reason they sold a lot because they were cheap (5d/7d) and video people were willing to work around many problems and inconvenience with DSLR design.

So Canon is and will be throwing 2k, 4k, etc at everything they can, and seeing if it sticks, because Marketing dept told them to do so. I don't think they will sell a lot of these expensive DSLR bodies that have no point.

Canon get your head out of the gutter, and get back to the drawing board, you are loosing your photo market and will not win video

Stands to reason these products are more "flagship" at flagship prices and good profit margins, they hardly need to sell many nor do they care if they sell in small numbers as every single sale makes good money. They can be custom built by elves in the workshop overnight as the orders roll in - batched on production lines like "everyman cameras" - no way.No need to worry, Canon is happy and just like Leica they only need to sell a few to those that really want them to keep smiling.The real problem is that they are very reluctant to grab the EVIL type nettle and throw away the mirror box for their mass market "poor sod can't afford more" market.If they had an EVIL type to show us this comment thread would hardly exist.

Exactly. No "major Hollywood studio" will be making feature motion picture films with basically a fancy "future proof" wedding video-cam. These $15-16,000 prices are totally ludicrous for what these Canon-cams are supposed to deliver. Divide the announced prices by 3, and you may be on to something actual salable in small numbers.

A lot of people here think 4K is too much...Did you ever see the SHARP 8K TV?Once you have chance to see it, you have no interest in 2K any more, 2K is too low resolution.4K is already behind 8K, if you continue to talk 2K, really outdated.

I disagree. My TV is 1380x768 or something, and I don't see a practical difference in favour of blu-ray over DVD. The extra sharpness of the blu-ray is there, along with more noise in some cases, but these "improvements" do not help convey the message of the movie or make it signficantly better visually. For moving pictures, high resolution is largely unnecessary. For stills, the situation is altogether different, as the viewer can spend time observing the details of the image.

For years standard def showed "no practical difference" compared to 480p. The bottom line is most professional outlets will want resolution HIGHER than current broadcast capabilities. When the technology comes out (and believe me, it will) it will be easy to up-convert. Film requires an expensive re-scanning every time they change resolution. Many films are already getting scanned in 8k resolution to avoid having to rescan again later.

Actually you have to be fairly close to the TV set to see a difference between SD and HD, less than 10' for a 42" screen. To see the difference between HD and 4K you would have to sit five feet from a 42" screen, or get a 84" screen... Trying to get past HD gets impractical, but certainly we will get 4K home systems in less than 10 years.

Are you stupid or what? seriously who cares about 8K ? even the REDs don't shoot at 8K so give me a break. Full HD is good enough. I can't wait to see those new 4K TVs by LG and Samsung but then again full HD for internet is plenty enough. So give us a break about your 8K and 2K not being good enough. oh and how much is your 8K TV? and can u tell us which camera shoots at 8k... and for how much ?

8K has been scheduled to be the TV relay camera for 2024 Olympics. 8K broadcast (could be cable only in some places) will be available before that, and 8K TV sets be sold less than 10 grands. I think Japan will have it if 2020 Olympics goes to Tokyo.

Francis,Yes, may be a "16K Man" after the 2020 Olympics... when NHK, or NEC, or Philips announced their 16K broadcasting cameras.But, for the time being, I'm still interested in the SHARP's 8K TV and NHK's 8K broadcasting camera.

Prototypes don't count. You won't be seeing 8K TVs and cameras until 2025+; even then they be will expensive commercial models and in theaters.

I stand by what I posted earlier. As of now, the prices for even 4K displays and projectors are outside of consumer range ($10,000 to 1/2 million price range). Even 4K, at consumer price range, is 3 to 5 years away.

ET2,We all know that 8K TV and 8K camera are not available in the market yet. But the technology is already here and once you see the 8K TV, you know how beautiful it is. Just like you were watching IMAX when you stood about 5 feet in front of that TV. What a wonderful experience. If you have chance, you should see it too. It will shock you.As a consumer, we don't care what the supplier need to do in order to keep down the cost and the selling price. We only have interest to know what we can get now and what we can get in the foreseeable future.If you go back to 10 years ago, would you think the HDTV would be so popular after 10 years? would you think a 8GB SD card would only sell at US$5 (in HK) after 10 years?If we just think about the past and present things, our life will be so dull.Think big and think ahead!

When watching a movie I like to see it from far enough away so that I need not turn my head too much, and no need to turn my head to read the subtitles. This means a certain viewing angle. If we know the biggest possible viewing distance we can calculate the biggest possible screen size, and as we know the angular resolution of the human eye (1.2 arcminute per line pair, or a 0.35 mm line pair, at 1 m), we can calculate the maximum resolution needed for the screens.

Photojournalism pros are going to shoot 4K video and do stills capture after the fact? If so, the mirror is going to be locked-up 100% of the time (or something close). The OVF that pros prefer won't even be used. Everything will be composed off the LCD or outboard monitor. Then why have a flippin' mirror and OVF in the first place? While it may not make for a substantially more compact camera, or trim the weight or cost in a meaningful way... Wouldn't additional memory card slots be more useful (fewer stops to reload)?

OK, a photojournalist whose primary business is stills, but has to be prepared to shoot 4K video as well? The 1D C would fit the bill nicely. But if the primary market for this rig is as a B camera in video and cinema production? In terms of "professional image" it'd be better to have something that looks like a digital cinema cam.

I have to agree. This will not be an inexpensive rig. So just who will be entrusted with this gear? Video from newspapers is web delivered. Video for TV journalists is already well covered by existing dedicated gear and used by videographers who are not being paid to make stills.A PJ who is making stills (an endangered species) MAY want a video clip periodically but 4K is an expensive capability considering the video available in a 1Dx or even 1Dmk4.

Devil's advocate? Because stills capture from lower quality video formats is not quite good enough. A freelancer able to sell both video and high quality stills has more marketing opportunities. And when you're alone in the field and a higher shutter speed and/or strobe is required? A camcorder doesn't quite cut it - time to switch to stills mode.

Photojournalists have nothing to do with this camera, they will get either 1DX and/or 5D3, or D4 and/or D800 (like me). This offers nothing I need for my work, as even 1080p is mostly overkill for web and TV. Compressed 4K video is not good enough for frame grabs (except web & newspapers) . What I would like to have is XLR jacks for audio, and a knob for gain setting. That could be done to replace the extra battery holders in 5D3 and D800.

Excellent point, and I could not agree more. Depending on what its price & specifications were, I would even go so far as to dump my Nikon gear for it. I absolutely despise this stills-video convergence happening in the d-SLR realm. Totally despise it.

The presence of video may offend some, but every digital camera is, in essence, a video camera - electronic photography. About the only component video adds to a camera is a mini-HDMI jack. The rest is in firmware - it weighs nothing, and takes up no physical space. You want to shoot stills at 12 fps? Why not go to 24 or 30? Once the mirror is locked-up, the main limiting factor is processor speed.

Video is just an extra tool on the Swiss Army knife - a feature you may never use, but may just turn out to be helpful down the road. DSLRs are loaded with such capabilities. Sure, Canon could build you exactly what you want. They'd just remove the video features from the menu. The guts would be the same camera that comes off the assembly line with video.

If you could explain what new, cool features Canon might give you because video was absent... But I bet you'd be very hard pressed. There's probably nothing they could do that would rule out video, other than remove the mirror lock-up.

Somebody could just write a no-video hack firmware disabling all video features (including the live view and the splendid focusing aid it provides, for purity's sake) and sell that for $49.95 for those who despise DSLR video in their cameras. This no-video kit would include a blob of blue-tack you could push to the mic, headphone and HDMI jacks.

Just because I can tow a seven ton trailer with a Porsche 911 doesn't mean I will fit it with a tow hitch.

Yes you CAN take video from a still camera, but what's the point in making a 4k movie camera look like a stills camera, with a mirror box and loads of pointless features? Its a lousy stills camera anyway, so just gimme the darn video and forget the pointless appendages.

And then design a proper stills camera with AF and lenses that dont have to have stepless apertures and silent zooming etc. but just focus.

I never said video was evil. Stop reducing this to some adolescent fanboy tirade. I don't mind simple video capability on a DSLR for the odd clip as long as it does not impinge on the stills experience IN ANY WAY but by the same token when I am shooting video purposely I don't want to deal with all the dumb form factor and short time limitations (and other IQ issues) I get with a DSLR.

What need have most PJs of 4K video? Most of the ones I know shoot with compression high enough to be satellite broadcast from some warzone, not presented in a widescreen cinema. HDTV is more than enough for lone PJ guys.

It seems to me that they are just doing it because they CAN, but the truth is most people who mainly shoot stills dont need a 4k quality and most people who need 4k don't shoot stills and will hate the ergos. It's a single product with two unrelated and competing markets. A sort of engineering camel.

This camera is not designed for photojournalist, but is for cinema, or as a B-camera when portability is needed. The 1D-C is also not for still photographers who occasionally shoot video.

Canon is releasing a 4K camera to keep pace with RED, and where the industry is headed. Canon has become a major player in high-end video production, and if they don't keep pace, they will fall too far behind. And they are in a unique position because of the ergonomics and small form factor of the DSLR.

The DSLR form factor is small because it is not designed for video. Why not just design a smaller video camera that can shoot 8MP stills? I see all the convergence in the DSLR field, nothing coming the other way.

Because you cannot fit a FF sensor, or even a Super 35mm sensor in a camcorder size body.

It doesn't matter what it a DSLR was designed for, just how it performs and what it brings to videography, both low budget indie and hollywood.FF camera has a large sensor and a specific cinematic look that smaller cameras do not have. If you don't understand why something it useful, it may be best to seek out all the amazing professional work - TV commercials, films, music videos, weddings, documentary rather dismiss them or try to shoehorn animal metaphors onto them. Canon is not trying to replace racehorses with camels, only using that camel for it's unique abilities.

Listening to some photographers talk about professional video from the POV of a photographer is a bit like listening to a geek talk about sports. They kind of understand, but when they don't, they miss the forest well before the trees.

marike -- this is true only in Canon's own, rather twisted mind. Canon's video cameras are rather junky, actually. It is called their "XF" series of camcorders, check them out.

Their announced "EOS Cinema" line is hardly better. Nobody half-way serious would pick one of Canon's ill-fated attempts over something serious like an Arri, Panavision, Red, Sony, Vision Research, etc. digital film camera.

Plus, Canon gear is always 2x or 3x as expensive as what they should really be priced at, based on what the competition is offering. A no-win situation for Canon, no matter how we slice it.

Canon's efforts here are, in my opinion, a waste of development resources that they could have been spending on their still-camera lineup (with video). RED is so far ahead of Canon here that Canon has nothing to compete on except price, and their prices are way too high. Consumers aren't going to buy these expensive cameras so their volumes - and therefore their profits - are going to be low.

So let's see a high-pixel-count full-frame, a 100-400L II, the actual release of the lenses they've announced, a T4i, a 70D and a 7D II instead of these cinema cameras that have almost no chance of competing in the cinema market and that almost no consumers have any interesting in buying in place of a nice automobile for the same price.

Canon video cameras are already competing in the professional cinema market. Did you read the article which discusses the reasons for using such a camera?

Tons of professionals already use the excellent C300. The RED Scarlet-X is a great camera, but if you need a smaller, lighter, more mobile solution for run-and-gun, documentary, car mounts for action, etc. the Canon will be a much better choice. As far a consumers buying this cameras instead of an auto, this is not a "consumer" camera, so you need to think of what professionals need, and what their budgets are. All rental houses have these cameras so it's not necessary to take out a mortgage to buy them.

Consumers are not buying REDs, Arris, Cinealtas, Panavisions or these cinema Canons any more than they are buying industrial metal presses, frame saws or meat canning machines. They do not know that they even exist. And Canon does not care! Because they are selling them to video and cinema professionals. The problem seems to be that the borderline between amateur and professional, stills and video is getting blurred, and now amateurs are noticing these new video cameras and are annoyed that they can not afford them. If you could not afford a $100000 Cinealta, what is the problem if you can not afford a $15000 Canon 1D c, which you do not need even. Canon is taking the monetary risks here, why worry about it? I believe 1D C is going to be a big seller.

You're so right about a new 100-400L II zoom in particular, it's way overdue! As for a 70D and a 7D MkII, I'm sure they're in development, maybe delayed though by all this 4K video camera palaver, at least I hope they are, in development that is...

"Canon video cameras are already competing in the professional cinema market."

Any professional shooting Cinema in a compressed RGB CODEC is, frankly, not being professional. Given the three Canon choices here, I'd choose RED every day of the week, and I don't even like RED as a company (their founder has a tough time with the truth)!

"Canon video cameras are already competing in the professional cinema market. Tons of professionals already use the excellent C300."

@ marike: if you don't mind me asking -- what planet are you from, please?

Only people who used the C300 are the ones who were PAID BY CANON to do so. Some camera rental houses have bought them -- because that is what they do. They buy everything that comes out, hoping that someone down the line will rent them. But a lot of these rental camera hardly ever come off the shelf, see?

Canon EOS C300 is basically a prosumer camcorder with very limited features and a consumer-type, highly compressed codec for a professional D-film camera's price. It is therefore a "no-go" thrice over, in other words.

Yeah, compared to "Lost Soul Canon" of late, the Red Camera Co. is a paradigm of virtue.

Journalists don't need 4k as footage simply is never broadcasted at more than 1080p. Other DSLRS which are much cheaper than this one can do that and are aimed at them (D4 5D MKIII D800) Or they just use an Iphone if need be.This is a movie shooting camera in a DSLR-body.

Really? You think it's that bad? Your own work must be superb to publicly diss this example as 'horrible' without even bothering to explain why. I would never dare such a thing myself as I know I'm not that good to justify it.

Do you have a link to any of your work that we can all see? I'd love to be inspired but I see nothing in your gallery, or in your forum posts. Thanks.

There is something principally ugly with the noise characteristics in that picture; chroma noise is in blatant truth quite horrible, not even comparable to a few years old better P&S cameras. However, in its intended use the temporal filtering effect i.e. temporal averaging resulting from fast frame rates is very forgiving in this regard.

Overall tonality is not that great either, whether it is a result of lighting conditions or sensor + processing parameters, I don't know, but good it isn't.

@DarkShift and LSE, whether the iPhone is better than 4K or not is neither here nor there really. This isn't a 4K vs other camera argument. It's a straightforward and absolute people claiming 4K is useless crap. I say it isn't and posted a link to Laforet's image to prove it isn't. I'm not saying 4K is the bestest of the best, just that it *isn't crap*.

So still there are replies after looking at Laforet's image and claiming it is indeed crap, using even harsher words to describe it such as 'horrible' and 'ugly'...

Which makes me wonder we may be looking at the same image, but we're clearly not seeing the same thing. Are people actually looking at the image or the emulsion?

I'm looking at image and I think it looks nice. It's a photograph which is pleasing to the eye. There is even a lot of detail in the tiny crumbs on her cheek when you click on th eimage to iew it full size to make pixel-peepers happy. Definitely not even remotely crap, horrible or ugly in my opinion at all.

If you look at the picture at 1:1 pixel level it is nowhere near smooth but full of (mostly) green dots and compression artifacts. I do not know what kind of compression was used in this codek, but if it is not 4:4:4 but 4:2:2 half of the color information is thrown away making two pixel color blocks. If it is 4:2:0 four pixels are put together for color and 3/4 thrown away. It is a pretty picture and usable in small size printing, but the quality really is P&S. Video is NOT the same as stills shot at fast rate, because the data processing and recording can not handle the massive data rates involved. Thus drastic compression needs to be used and color information thrown away. This we do not much notice with moving images, but pixel peeping stills is another matter.

There is also the problem of video and stills needing different shutter speeds as long as video frame rates are too low to shoot at high shutter speeds. This makes video unusable for stills grabs.

On PROFESSIONAL film/TV/spots sets (not one of Canon's forte of late, if ever), even when they are shooting on 35mm film there is always a unit still photographer there w. a DSLR to grab publicity stills.

If you cannot lift good quality stills off of a strip of 35mm motion picture film, and you cannot, what makes you think you can do better from junky codec 4K video?

Canon has serious internal conflicts of interest. They have a stills department and video department. With the advent of DSLR video, they have failed to adjust strategy and are not pushing HD-DSLR as far as they could be. There is likely little to no crossover from the cost efficient 5DII DSLR crowd to any of these absurdly priced C cameras, and I don't think Canon can effectively compete with Sony Red and the like on the high end, especially not at these prices, but I wish them the very best of luck in trying and would be happy to be proven wrong even though I would never buy one of these things.

I'm a Canon user, and I love DSLR video in my stills camera and want to see it pushed as far as it can be with each new generation while not losing any stills functionality and keeping prices the same. But I have to say, Nikon has a huge advantage not having a video department. They have no internal market share to cannibalize from pushing their own DSLR video to it's current maximums.

I seriously doubt Canon will sell a single copy of its EOS 1D C. It's a camera the pleases no one. Nobody needs one of these, either, even if they ever do get released.

Also, Canon uses the same low-quality Motion JPEG codec (XF-codec) in their $16,000 "cinema camera" (ha-ha-ha-ha) than what they use with their pedestrian $3,400 XF-100 camcorder (he-he-he-he) !!!

They MAY sell some copies of the EOS C300 -- but only if they move the price immediately into the $5,000 to $8,000 range. More than that, the C300 definitely does not worth.

I sort of doubt the announced Canon plans for the development of an EOS C500 camera will ever happen, but even if it does by say next year, Red and Sony will have a few unpleasant things to say about that. Brutally crush Canon's Hollywood hopes, in other words.